Man co-existing with dinosaurs,

Man did and still does co-exist with dinosaurs, not all were destroyed during the flood, Crocodiles are direct decendants. Surely proof enough.

Direct Descendants are not the "real thing". Otherwise I happen to know that some animals that are around now were around then, I just forget which and right nwo am too lazy to check.Hengineer 10:09, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

You've got to be kidding me. Crocodiles and dinosaurs are distant cousins, not direct relatives; crocs' last common ancestor with dinosaurs was a small lizard-like critter.--M 14:36, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Here is proof that men co-existed with dinosaurs, in this picture, Jesus is even seen holding a little crocodile: [[1]] Orgone 14:51, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Muhammad

Aside from the fact that the years are not in chronological order (to cleverly place Mohamed between the Columbine massacre and Hitler) the date is wrong. The Muslim calendar, like the Jewish one, is lunar so the dates on it move. The birth of Mohamed, Mawlid an-Nabī, is given as the 12th day of the third month of the calendar [2]. But the Muslim calendar is less predictable than the Jewish one as the start of each month is based on the actual sighting of the crescent moon (so the dates may vary by a day or two either way) [3]. The next time the birth of Mohamed will be celebrated is 2008, around the 19th of May [4]; this year it fell closer to the 1st of April [5] (here is a news story about it being celibrated this year, published on the 2nd of April [6] ). If the date here is supposed to mark the actual date of Mohamed’s birth (rather than the date it is observed) it is pure speculation, at best, the early accounts of Mohamed’s life are unreliable [7] and the earliest celebration of the date came some 600 years after the event itself [8].--Reginod 09:26, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

This false claim still appears on the main page. False claims on the main page hurt Conservapedia. Can someone please fix it?--Reginod 09:32, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Breaking News

The column said he hated the American society to which he had been brought 15 years earlier. . Is it really so difficult to reference something accurately. This is supposed to be the Trustworthy Encyclopedia. WhatIsG0ing0n 11:37, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

And it's a column! Columns aren't news, they are opinion. Myk 13:14, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Cho

I have to write this to make something clear. With all respect, the anti-Christian messages in Cho's ranting are not relevant. The actual meaning of his words are unknown, as he was clearly psychotic. He committed evil acts, and God can sort out the moral implications for his afterlife. In order, however, to come to grips with what this means to those of us still walking this Sphere, we must be analytical.

People with psychotic delusions are rarely violent. In this case, there were many clues that he would become violent, and he was also allowed to purchase instruments of violence legally (although I'm sure he could have gotten them illegally fairly easily). His behavior had very little to do with his ethnicity, religion, visa status, hair color, or anything other than his psychosis. He did not seek out and kill any specific religious or ethnic group; he killed those surrounding him--fellow students.

People who kill because of hatred, vs. psychosis, follow a very different pattern. Their victim may share religious or ethnic traits, and the killer will usually give a well-reasoned excuse for the killing, citing hate, persecution, whatever.

Killing is, either way, evil, but one is done out of illness and could perhaps have been prevented, and one is done out of premeditated hatred. I hate to see the scant evidence of religious hatred in his rantings pulled together here to make it seem that Cho was of the latter group. There are enough "haters" out there without having to conjure up more.
Thanks for your patience and tolerance in reading this opinion, and may God have mercy on the souls of the victims and the killer.

Thanks. Cho actually purchased the guns illegally by lying about his being committed on the application. This Doesn't change the facts, but does perhaps point to the need to allow authorities access to medical records for the purpose of screening, if nothing else. NothingVentured 15:29, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Actually he did buy the legally. He was never committed against his will, which would have disqualified him. Jrssr5 16:24, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Either way, I have no strong opinion to express on gun control, just on the characterization of the killer.PalMDtalk 16:40, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

The general feel of most of what is being put on the front page, including the dissection of the poem, is that the site, and Mr. Schlafly are attempting to capatalize on the deaths of these students to push causes he supported or did not support way before this happened. It has the appearance of opportunism, and is rather ghoulish. Etaroced 01:54, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy your criticism on the main page of the English department's poem implies, by stating "denies responsibility," that VT is responsible for the tragedy that happened this past Monday. It also accuses them of being liberals... seemingly without cause. Whether or not, though, this is extremely insensitive. Extremely.-AmesGyo! 02:04, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Why not? Was the English Department sensitive to Cho? They had him in his class, saw his writings, and chose to do nothing. Was that "sensitivity" at work? Is a poem all they could come up with? As far as I'm concerned, the truly insensitive part was allowing Cho to get away with killing 32 people, when all of these highly "educated" clowns saw the warning signs and did absolutely nothing. So don't be griping about a self-serving poem here. Karajou 12:27, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

So they "asked for it," Karajou? Also, the English Dep't did try to do something - the Police refused :-/-AmesGyo! 12:28, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Nobody asked for it. Nobody deserved to be killed. Everybody deserved to be protected from this individual, and that didn't happen. Karajou 12:37, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Wow, evenhandedness & random comments

"A thoughtful comparison of Conservapedia to Wikipedia is provided by George Mason University's History News Network here" The linked article is not exactly, um, favorable to CP. Oh, and what is up with saying CP is getting more hits than O'Reilly's site (in that article)? Wasn't that only true briefly, in the late Feb 07 "post-publicity" peak? Anyway, I'm glad the picture of the mass murderer is finally not getting more undeserved publicity. Unless you consider Oppenheimer a mass murderer... Human 20:54, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

I guess the good thing about the article is that it is less unfavourable to Conservapedia than normal, despite it having its own bias. There's probably a number examples of bias that could be quoted, but one in my area of expertise is this: "Wikipedia conforms to the conventional view of prehistory and does not compress the period into a few thousand years.". This statement presumes that "prehistory" is much longer than a few thousand years and thus needs to be "compressed", indicating that the author favours the long-age view promoted by Wikipedia, and allows that bias to influence his writing.

Another problem with the article is that it overlooks the bias introduced by giving too much weight to different points of view. It does actually recognise this once, when it comments, that "Wikipedia’s claim to objectivity in this instance is unfortunate as it leaves the misleading impression that all theaters were equally important", but ignores this possibility in other instances, such as the different views about Jesus.

On the lighter side, it's ironic that a comment about the reliability of Britannica makes one wonder about the reliability of the author: "Neither work is as reliable of course as the Enclopedia (sic) Britannica".

Human, the article is not completely satisfactory, but it is a thorough work that contains a great deal of good information. As Philip points out, the article does have flaws. But we appreciate genuine effort here, even when it is not entirely favorable.--Aschlafly 00:47, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree, and, of course, I probably "read" it differently than you do. I sensed a strong undercurrent of sarcasm - the reporter expecting his audience to "get" the joke. See my comments somewhere (your user page?) under Goal Setting - this site is not really "ready for prime time", it still needs work, effort, time, before it can be presented to the world as an achievement. Human 02:13, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm not of the persusasion that "all publicity is good publicity", generally, but in some cases, when it's not an outright attack and has some positive things to say, you have to accept it, and maybe even learn from it. DanH 00:52, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Shakespeare

The page currently reads, "William Shakespeare is being dropped by most American colleges[.]" That's not what the article says. The article says, based on a survey, most American colleges do not require an English major to take a class dedicated to Shakespeare. It does not say that Shakespeare classes are being canceled, or that Shakespeare is being removed from classes not dedicated to him. Nor does it say that English departments do not require any study of Shakespeare in their required curriculum. Just that they typically don't require a class dedicated to him.

What ACTA has done is operationalize "Shakespeare requirement" very narrowly, such that few responses could be coded in the affirmative. It would be more useful, though probably more work, to individually interview every English professor at the participating schools to determine which syllabi include Shakespeare, and whether or not a student could get through his major and gen ed requirements without encountering Shakespeare. It might be even more englightening to survey a population of students and determine how many English majors actually did get through without any Shakespeare. (I never took any English classes and had to do Hamlet and Julius Caesar, so I imagine very few actual English majors could get through college without any Shakespeare.)

Anyway, McPaper is not the best source in the world; why not read ACTA's report? If you read through it, you'll see that several of the schools coded as "no Shakespeare requirement" do explicitly require the study of Shakespeare. Those that don't probably have an implied Shakespeare requirement. (At least one doesn't even have an English major, so should have been excluded from the study's conclusions.)--All Fish Welcome 01:22, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

I dunno 'bout no colliges, but I took Shakes'spears in High School. We read several of the tragedies and commedia in class, I used to have to fight with a drama kind of guy to get good parts to read (to keep me awake I had to be involved, go figure...). I would agree with All Fish Welcome that the article seems contrived. Personally I find myself quoting or referencing the Bard on an almost daily basis. Although that might just be the company I keep. Human 02:16, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

According to the article cited William Shakespeare is NOT being dropped by most American colleges. The requirement that students to study the influential author has been dropped. I would correct that myself, but the page is locked. (To prevent correction or to preserve the Conservapedia spin?) Good to see the Trustworthy Encyclopedia living up to the high standards it has set itself.

It doesn't even say the requirement that students study Shakespeare has been dropped. It's the requirement that they take an entire course, vide the photo caption: "Wellesley is one of the few liberal arts colleges that require a course on the Bard."

(What I really want to know is, does Simon's Rock of Bard require a course on the Bard?) Dpbsmith 11:37, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

I was joking, but it turns out that they do have one... Literature 222, "Shakespeare." Much more to the point, it turns out that "First-Year Seminar I and II: The Examined Life," which is required of all first-year students "In the spring semester, students further develop their writing and thinking skills through reading, discussion, and expository writing, using a variety of primary and supplementary texts, including Shakespeare’s Hamlet, Mozart and Da Ponte’s Don Giovanni, Austen’s Pride and Prejudice, and Douglass’ Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass."2006 Catalogue (pdf). In other words, Simon's Rock, a well-regarded small liberal-arts college, may not require anyone to take the course Literature 222, Shakespeare, but it requires everyone to study Shakespeare in first-year seminar. I am sure this is typical of most liberal arts colleges. Dpbsmith 11:47, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

I think we have Shakespeare here at MTSU as a course (I'm not taking it), but I think the point of the news article is that a subject that had a massive influence on the English language is out the door at several colleges...not all, but enough to cause some concern. Karajou 12:40, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

French presidental election

The conservative Nicolas Sarkozy wins the French presidential election, would be better expressed as The conservative Nicolas Sarkozy wins the first round of the French presidential election --Cgday 06:07, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

I have no clue. Mind quoting it on the REMF talk page? Thanks... Human 18:43, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

The comment is rather biased and opinion-mongering. His name and title should be used, not "jimmy carter". Propose changing it to President James Carter. I also propose that the phrase "politically motivated" be removed as well. Such is speculation. Granted I didn't live through it, but such charged text should not be used in an encyclopedia, let alone the front page. Hengineer 11:18, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

No, everyone in the United States knows him as "Jimmy Carter," by his own choice. No one would even recognize "James Carter." The case for the political motivation in the entry is also very well supported.--Aschlafly 11:29, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

So "President Jimmy Carter" then. And kills? He didn't kill anyone - he sent people to rescue other people, and the first set of people were killed by other people. Kill would be, he got a gun and shot 7 people. See the difference? Would we ever put, "Today is the aniversery of the Iraq War, when a politically motived invasion caused George Bush to kill 3000"?

Conservpedia or Conserv-a-pedia

I see that the front page uses the "Conservapedia" spelling repeatedly, but www.conservapedia.com is not the correct url to reached the website. Is there any word on the reason for this discrepency? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Grantor(talk)

Only on Conservapedia: this study debunked. - what "debunking" things has to do with an encyclopedia I'm not sure? It also doesn't explain the scientific qualifications of the people do the dubunking - can we have them listed somewhere? --Cgday 16:13, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

why not just change it to "think tank" or something closer to the reality of what it is? --Cgday 16:30, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

How about something less propagandistic than "trustworthy?" Flippin 16:33, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

why not just change it to "think tank" or something closer to the reality of what it is? --Cgday 16:30, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

We've mentioned the "think tank" aspect before. We do have some elements of that here. But this is still overwhelmingly an encyclopedia project, 8,300 entries and counting.

I'm sure the Encyclopedia Britannica had room for some insight too.--Aschlafly 16:40, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia has news on its front page. Clearly it is an "encyclopedia plus". So I suppose that Conservapedia can also be thought of as an "encyclopedia plus", even if it is a bigger "plus" than Wikipedia (you can take that both ways!). Philip J. Rayment 21:19, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Then, if it's an encyclopedia plus, which allows original research, then it's more like a 'Conservative-biased handbook to the world'. --Wikinterpretertalk?

I agree - I think that the "Read the flaws..." headline opener would never actually be in an encyclopedia. What might be in one is, Flaws found in... - but there's a pov spin that's created when you have the former, and that is contradictory to all encyclopedias.Iduan 07:36, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Sigh - and then in the history section it says jimmy carter killed 8 soldgiers. Would this encyclopedia ever print "Bush has killed nearly 3000 soldgiers"? Iduan 07:44, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Of course they wouldn't print that...not with all the goofy misspellings! Karajou 08:12, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm glad you can point at a typo in an effort to avoid the question. Great quality as an editor.Iduan 22:12, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Bush didn't kill three thousand soldiers: the enemies of America did that. So, no, this encyclopedia would never print such a despicable entry. Karajou 00:04, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

And it was the "enemies of America" who killed the "Carter 8". Human 00:43, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

But they do have this vital story "Seattle [Gay] Pride group disbanding and filing for bankruptcy, see story here."

em yeah a gay pride group in seattle - I'm sure that's the most interesting news item on the planet at the moment and deserves the title "breaking news". --Cgday 08:23, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Hmmm... and how much debt does the U.S. government have... Sterile 09:34, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

"We take you now to Kermit the Frog with another fast-breaking news story!"

New 'super-Earth' found in space

"Astronomers have found the most Earth-like planet outside our Solar System to date, a world which could have water running on its surface.

The planet, Gliese 581c, orbits the faint star Gliese 581, which is 20.5 light-years away in the constellation Libra.

Scientists made the discovery using the Eso 3.6m Telescope in Chile.

They say the benign temperatures on the planet mean any water there could exist in liquid form, and this raises the chances it could also harbour life."

Any sign of silicon? If so, perhaps it could harbour computers as well? Philip J. Rayment 06:29, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

And think of the trouble we've had just getting PCs to talk to Macs! But maybe if we blast them over a copy of Skype on CD they might know what to do with it, i hate to think of the phone bill we'd run up talking to life forms 20 lightyears away... Orgone 07:12, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Slavic immigrants

Slavic immigrants mysteriously become Slavic churches in the news report cited. Is that not a bit like writing American citizens are active in opposing the creationist agenda because of a news report like this? Auld Nick 10:41, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

trust me friend, most Slavic people oppose the gay agenda. and the phrase doesnt say all Slavic immigrants(even though it probably should) it simply states the fact, the people in the news story are Slavic immigrants. what offensive name would you rather call them? "fools" or "homophobes" or is their a new insult for people who disagree with the said agenda?Bohdan 11:36, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

How about Slavic homosexual immigrants? Do they oppose the gay agenda as well? --AKjeldsen 11:40, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

name one. If you can, they probably still do oppose the radical agenda.Bohdan

Considering I don't actually live in America, naming any Slavic immigrants, much less homosexual ones, will be difficult. But considering how homosexuals are currently being treated in e.g. Poland or the Baltics, I guess it's a pretty safe bet they exist. --AKjeldsen 15:40, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Today in History: Chernobyl

I would like to propose an addition to April 26 "Today in History". On April 26 1986, the worst disaster ever in nuclear power generation history occured: The Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster. --Mcpannier 15:05, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia Statistics: Number of Members

The main page already says the number of articles, page views, and page edits, but it doesn't say how many Conservapedia members helped make it all possible. I suggest adding the number of members to the statistics on the main page. --Mcpannier 15:11, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

The pro-gay EU

Whereabouts in the AP story [9] can I read about the pro-gay EU? I couldn't find that bit. Are you sure the link is to the correct article?
Auld Nick 06:59, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

The EU parliament called on Polish authorities to publicly condemn and take measures against declarations by officials "inciting discrimination and hatred based on sexual orientation."

The assembly asked the EU's anti-racism center in Vienna to look into "the emerging climate of racist, xenophobic and homophobic intolerance in Poland," and to determine whether the bloc's anti-discrimination rules were being violated.

It's right there, if you read the article. Clearly these EU statements are "pro-gay" (they are not neutral or "anti", are they?) --Ed Poor 07:17, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

The EU parliament is not the same thing as the EU. That would be like saying the United States calls for troop withdrawal based on this article

Those statements are not clearly "pro-gay". It's more of an "equal rights" thing, it just happens to be over a gay issue. And Auld Nick is right, the EU Parliment is one half of the EU's legistlative body, sort of like the House of Reps, but they don't have the ability to initiate legislation. Jrssr5 08:56, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

The Reverend Haggard

Can someone explain the Reverend Haggard? One that was close to President Bush and railed against homosexuality and later being forced to come out by his homosexual partner? If in the eyes of the "Conservatives" (certainly many here, on this board) homosexuality is immoral and such, is the belief that it is a deliberate, willful action on the part of the homosexuals or something else within them that made them that "way"? If "God" knows everything, controls everything, can predict/make the future, is ALL powerful, if He considers "homosexuality" immoral, why not strike them down as "Devil" incarnates? Why does He tolerate such behavior? Why does He need mortals to do His work? Finally, did Jesus show such disdain for people who are not "perfect"? User:Seekcommon

I had written that I do not have the privilege of adding/editing content on the front page, so I lingered in the Debate Topics area. I was corrected, so it seems, I'll check later and see. I may be assisting against the very intolerant people that I am railing against, allowing them to use my words to say to their followers "Look, at what people write and believe, what blasphemies, please support our cause so we may prevail" User:Seekcommon (April 27, 2007, 08:00 CDT)

CFL light bulbs

Apparently you didn't read it. Had you did so, you would have read this paragraph:

Greenpeace also recommends CFLs while simultaneously bemoaning contamination caused by a mercury thermometer factory in India. But where are mercury-containing CFLs made? Not in the U.S., under strict environmental regulation. CFLs are made in India and China, where environmental standards are virtually non-existent.

You need to get your thinking straight before you begin to criticise us. Karajou 09:45, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

That thermometer distracted me. I was using one (I won't care to mention where) at the time of reading the article. When the article mentioned thermometers and mercury I got a shock and must have jumped the next line. Thankfully I didn't drop the thermometer at the time. Thanks for pointing that out.

Fortunately, that problem is easily solved by purchasing CFLs made by Philips, which contain only 1.4 mg of mercury [11]. Besides, I completely fail to see what is so "leftist" about CFLs. If you use them, you're saving money. That's all there is to it. Or is it a particularly Conservative virtue to waste money just for the heck of it? --AKjeldsen 18:47, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, our government has this to say about CFLs [12]. It appears to me that these people got hosed and spent way more than they had to to clean that up. Colest 19:05, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Thwarted terroist attack--breaking news sugestion

Police in Texas, just (less than 24 hours ago), thwarted a terrorist attack. (CNN story here [13] ) I think this belongs in the breaking news section.--Reginod 09:39, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I would agree that placing a bomb where people could get killed is an act of terrorism, just as it is an act of terror to pull off the arms and legs of an unborn child at an abortion clinic. Karajou 09:47, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Awwwww no. Karajou, you can't possibly think that bombing clinics is justified, or on the same level of moral evil.-AmesGyo! 09:51, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

I believe he could, but come now. Is abortion really terrorism? And if so, are there other examples of medical terrorism you'd like to write on? Flippin 09:55, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

The individual who planted that bomb I expect to be caught, tried, and convicted to the fullest extent of the law. There are better ways of stopping abortion than a bomb, and those ways involve a pen and a vote. But don't sit there and say it's wrong that a terrorist had chosen to plant a bomb on the outside of an abortion clinic while ignoring or supporting what is going on inside one. Karajou 09:56, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

I would agree that placing a bomb where people can get killed is an act of terrorism, but so is killing innocent civilians. The individual who planted that bomb I expect to be caught, tried, and convicted to the fullest extent of the law. There are better ways of stopping the occupation than a bomb, and those ways involve a pen and a vote. But don't sit there and say it's wrong that a terrorist had chosen to plant a bomb on the outside of an Iraqi police department while ignoring or supporting what is going on inside one.

Care to tell me what the difference between the argument I’ve just advanced and the one you just advanced is?--Reginod 10:03, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

You did not advance an argument, except to say an implied support for abortion as evidenced by your inclusion of the CNN article. If you think that the killing of an unborn child is just a simple medical proceedure that should be protected, then may God help you change your way of thinking. Karajou 10:10, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

I said “I would agree that placing a bomb where people can get killed is an act of terrorism, but so is killing innocent civilians. The individual who planted that bomb I expect to be caught, tried, and convicted to the fullest extent of the law. There are better ways of stopping the occupation than a bomb, and those ways involve a pen and a vote. But don't sit there and say it's wrong that a terrorist had chosen to plant a bomb on the outside of an Iraqi police department while ignoring or supporting what is going on inside one.” Can you distinguish those who attack Iraqi police stations in a morally relevant way from those who attack abortion clinics? What happens inside both locations is the death of innocent people. What happens inside both locations is legitimized by the government, if not the people. What is the difference between the terrorist who bombs an Iraqi police station and the terrorist that bombs an abortion clinic? If you see none, your argument entails that it is wrong to report on the attacks on Iraqi police stations without reporting on the wrongs of the Iraqi police.--Reginod 10:17, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

P.S.For clarity, let me add I think support for terrorism (even the soft support you offer above), in either case, is wrong—and I am trying to point out that it is logically inconsistent for you to defend or sympathize with one and not the other.--Reginod 10:20, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Reginod, I am not sympathizing with anyone except the innocent civilian who may get killed. I strongly believe that the man who planted that bomb should be put away for life plus twenty, but you have to take into account that five or more kids may have been killed inside that clinic the day before, and I have no sympathy for those who would support that. Now if you please, abortion is a moot point as far as I'm concerned, so I am done debating it. You may continue. Karajou 10:25, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

I’m not debating, or trying to debate, abortion. My point is and was that terrorism is not just a Muslim (or Arab, or foreign) phenomena. Americans, and even Americans who ideologically identify with the Conservative movement, do it too. And it doesn’t matter who does it or why they do it, terrorism is wrong. Full stop. And we should praise the police for thwarting a terrorist attack and condemn those who attempt to carry them out. And I think your position is far too week on terrorism here—you refuse to condemn the potential killing of those inside the clinic and that is no different than saying its bad when terrorists in Baghdad kill innocent civilians, but when they kill Iraqi police, well I can’t condemn that. --Reginod 10:38, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Two wrongs still do not amount to a right. Trashbat 10:01, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

My point entirely but one of them is surely newsworthy at this point in time and the other, as you rightly said, is best dealt with by casting your vote with a good moral conscience. Trashbat 10:06, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Somebody was making fun of it on a political social networking site I frequent. DanH 00:30, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Liberal over-reliance on mockery is an interesting phenomenon in itself. Liberals attempt to mock conservatives far more than vice-versa. I don't mind, as it just gives Conservapedia more publicity.--Aschlafly 00:42, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

I started editing when I was checking out the site and saw spelling/grammar problems on a lot of pages. That was when hackers were jamming the site, and after I was unable to get on the site the next couple of days, I was actually not going to come back until I got an email saying I had been made a sysop. DanH 00:44, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Wow, that's interesting! I recall that you became one of the very first Sysops. That decision to make you a Sysop and follow through to notify you was one of the best. You've been invaluable to the success of this project.--Aschlafly 00:52, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

I started when I heard you (Aschlafly) on that Radio 4 debate program, with what's-his-name from Wikipedia. The project intrigued me, although not for the reasons that one might hope. I came (gasp!) to vandalise the place, but decided that that wouldn't help anyone, and instead decided to try to make productive edits: it's not doing 'liberals' (that great amorphous mass) like myself any credit if the limit of our arguing ability is to just trash our opponents - productive debate is the way forward, Ain't that nice :-) --Wikinterpretertalk?

Chernobyl

Andy, in stacking the death total of Chernobyl at just 50 you're ignoring the radioactive waste left, which has caused skyrocketing cancer rates in the surrounding area. I'll get statistics if you want them, but they're much higher than 50. Also, it seems a bit insensitive to downplay a world-wide tragedy. But then again.-AmesGyo! 23:57, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

"Benito Mussolini was executed on this day." April 27

Since there was no trial, it would surely be more correct to say that he was lynched.

Should this site be portraying his killing, which was (at the time) unjustified by any legal sentence, nor carried out by any duly constituted authority, as appropriate conduct, by using the word "executed" to imply its legality?

Is it the belief of Conservapedia, that it can ever be appropriate to kill somebody without due legal process? --Jeremiah4-22 11:12, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

I, for one, would be happy to drop, say, Osama bin Laden without a trial, and would believe such to be completely appropriate...--WJThomas 12:19, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

A fair trial is one of the shining achievements of the Western World, and when we are at our best it is what we achieve, when we are at our worst is when we fall short of that high standard we have set for ourselves.

The beauty of the Nuremburg Trials was that we gave the Nazis the best legal defense possible. We forced them and the world to see in clear, well documented, detail exactly what they had done wrong. We forced the German people to face the evil that had been done in their name. And then we hanged those who were guilty of the greatest evil.

Had we simply hanged them (which I assume is what you mean by “drop”) we would never have been able to start the healing process, and it would have been seen as victor’s justice not justice. The least competent prosecutor in the world could get Osama convicted, and in doing so we would make the world face the true evil that he represents, summary execution would make him a martyr and us the villains—is that what you really want? --Reginod 12:31, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

I couldn't agree with you more, Reginod. For a more recent example of what can be productively accomplished by dialogue instead of mindless vengeance, see also the work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission after the end of apartheid in South Africa. [14]--Britinme 12:54, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

I think we might be able to drive more http://www.google.com and other traffic to Conservapedia if we make the following articles at Conservapedia better based on the first 100 or so most popular articles at Wikipedia:

What do you think about starting a Conservapedia improvement drive for these articles? Clearly these are serious subjects that people are interested in based on Wikipedia statistics. Therefore, I believe from a strategic point of view in regards to creating internet traffic to Conservapedia it makes a lot of sense to start a improvement drive in regards to these Conservapedia articles. Conservative 22:56, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Two of those articles are locked from editing. GodlessLiberal 15:18, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

What would you like to edit? Perhaps I can unlock it for you.--Aschlafly 15:20, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Concentrating effort on the areas of knowledge that Wikipedia already owns is a really poor idea. It would be much better to concentrate on the articles that make Conservapedia different and special. --Jeremiah4-22 08:15, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

To get popular you'll have to clean up some of the really bad articles (I believe Cuba could be considered one of them). A lot of articles on here focus on one specific thing, and we have to widen that scope. That being said, we will never be as popular as Wikipedia because we say that we purposely add a bias - we're essentially a blog that has a lot of topics.Iduan 09:39, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps you don't like how our Cuba entry says, "Cuba has been ruled by a communist dictator named Fidel Castro since 1959." You don't see that on Wikipedia. I'll add this the growing examples of Bias in Wikipedia. Thanks.--Aschlafly 13:01, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps you can't read - the WP article does mention that Cuba is communist, and it does mentioned that it's ruled by fidel. I'm saying that the Cuba aritcle says nothing much of Cuba's history prior to fidel (it does mention the slavery), and shows everything in a negative light. But that was a mere example.Iduan 00:52, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

The Wikipedia article Cuba mentions that Fidel Castro and has held effective power in the country since 1959, how he increased the power of hardline Marxist figures in the government. It also mentions him declaring Cuba a socialist republic, and himself a Marxist-Leninist in May of 1961. Furthermore the article mentions summary executions of suspected Batista collaborators, the seizure of Cuban-owned businesses and the rapid demise of the independent press. There is also a section on human rights abuses in Cuba. I must admit the Wikipedia article is very long winded, simply having Cuba has been ruled by a communist dictator named Fidel Castro since 1959 is much easier to digest. Who needs detail? Auld Nick 13:25, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

While Castro is a dictator of sorts, he still is "elected" every 5 years. I'd say by CP's article saying he's a dictator you're actually more biased against him. It would be better to describe the government and how it works instead of making a blanket statement. And I doubt Iduan was refering just to that sentence when he/she said the Cuba article was bad. Jrssr5 13:29, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Btw, I really hate what you did to that bias page- talk about bias! the President did in fact go to a golf tournament instead of meet with Castro, and frankly you cannot critisize wikipedia for saying that. I don't think you understand how an encyclopedia works. It's not a blog where you can censor some facts to prove your point - rather, you present all the facts, there is no point to be made.Iduan 01:16, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Without commenting on the merits of the articles, it is impossible to present all the facts (they are close to infinite), so one has to select facts to present, and bias can be present merely by which facts are selected. Philip J. Rayment 03:07, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Google traffic - part II

If we are going to get http://www.google.com to build our web traffic for us I think the article improvement drive we are engaging in is the answer and I think the article improvement drive should focus on wildly popular subjects. With that being said, I don't think it is enough for our specific World War I, World War II, Jesus, and Adolf Hitler articles to have quality. They must offer depth of information too. What do I mean by depth of information? What I mean is that they must have quality articles associated with them though the internal links, see also sections, and articles available though the Category tags.

I believe there are 5 ways to have lots of articles associated with the above topics (for example, World War I and WWII. The first is to have second, third, and fourth waves of article improvement using the main/front page (for example, have a article improvement drive for "Western front". The second is to have a article improvement page. The fourth is to make sure all the articles have category tags. The fifth is to send emails to groups that would be interested in building these articles.

I and some others are looking to build the most comprehensive WWI resource on the internet. The resource will be located at http://www.conservapedia.org If you could spread the news it would be appreciated as we are looking for volunteers.

What do you think of my idea? And if you like it, what steps are we going to take to achieve this goal?

April 29 - "In the only act of chivalry in his life"

Even when speaking of Hitler, this is obviously an inaccurate statement.

His numerous medals for gallantry in World War I testify that Hitler (who undoubtably had his faults) was nevertheless capable of brave and self-sacrificing actions. Additionally, his devotion to Mussolini despite the Duce's repeated failures, and his kindness to children and his dog Blondi are clear evidence that Hitler was not a one-dimensional monster.

Such sloppy, emotionally biased and unencyclopaedic content, on the Front Page, just makes this site look ridiculous. Please, could whoever is responsible, word their edits better in future? --Jeremiah4-22 08:15, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

And how do you define encyclopedic content? Karajou 19:16, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, for this site, content should conform to The Conservapedia Commandments. This particular statement is in breach of commandments 1 (it's not true or verifiable), 2 (it's uncited), 3 (it's gossip) and 5 (it's personal opinion). A pretty poor example to set, don't you think? And right out on the front page, too. --Jeremiah4-22 19:24, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

And what makes you think it's my own personal opinion as to Hitler's only chivalrous act? Karajou 19:26, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

I wasn't (until now) aware that you were the author(?). It's not important who wrote it in any case, what's important is that edits to the Front Page are (at the very least) of the standard stipulated by Conservapedia in the Commandments. In particular, a statement as sweeping and inflammatory as this needs to be properly attributed, or it will be taken as personal opinion, giving entirely the wrong impression. --Jeremiah4-22 19:34, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Now you're chickening out of it. Several things you chose to ignore, and I'm letting you know right now. 1) You never bothered to provide a satisfactory definition for "encyclopedic content", choosing instead to cite Conservapedia rules; 2) You assumed I cited my own opinion regarding Hitler, when I have read several authors who had similar opinions about that individual, all of them not very nice. And one of them is author and historian Desmond Seward, who wrote a comparative biography on Napoleon and Hitler in 1988. His line about the "only chivalrous act in his life" is on page 293. 3) From the rant you made when introducing this subheading one can assume you are either pro-Nazi or pro-Hitler; this website is not going to coddle criminals, mass-murderers, psycopaths, and paranoids, of which Hitler was all of the above...and I dare any supporter of Hitler to try to sue me for for libel. Karajou 19:47, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, why not fix it by editing to say "in what historian Desmond Seward called 'the only chivalrous act in his life.'" If Jeremiah4-22 is acting in good faith, that ought to make everyone happy. No need to put the reference on the main page, as you've sourced and page-referenced it here. Dpbsmith 20:22, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

For this 'Encyclopedia' the Commandments (supposedly) set the acceptable standards for content. I've made it clear how your edit fails to abide by them. That a sysop can't adhere to the site's own rules is a very poor show indeed. In addition to it being rank hypocrisy, it hardly sets a good example to other users.

"From the rant you made when introducing this subheading one can assume you are either pro-Nazi or pro-Hitler"

Ad hominem attacks are also highly inappropriate behaviour for a sysop. I suggest that a (polite) retraction would be in order. --Jeremiah4-22 20:14, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

And that's right..."one can assume..." Notice I didn't say "I can assume"; and since it is an assumption based upon your own words above, which kind of support Hitler being a nice guy, then how is it I committed an ad hominem attack? I've seen your own edits over time, Jeremiah, and your own support for this website at times constitutes ad hominem etc etc. Karajou 20:31, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Despite what you're assuming, the wording still came across as an opinion. Had you properly cited the entry, per the commandments Jeremiah outlined above, this would be a moot point. Instead you're accusing him of chickening out, which is very un-sysop-like. Jrssr5 20:58, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Please explain your own edit below, Jrssr5. I would very much like to see this "proof" of the good things Hitler did regarding this "peace type summit" in 1938, as you stated. Karajou 21:01, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Sure no problem ... Munich Agreement. As the entries say, at the time it was considered a great Peace Effort. He broke it later, but like I said below, at the time it was considered a good thing. Jrssr5 21:28, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

A great peace effort it was not. Hitler had every intention of going to war with Czechoslovakia over the land that Hitler wanted, and he still got his way with the Munich Agreement, courtesy of the appeaser Neville Chamberlain. No one from Czechoslovakia was sent an invitation to join in on the conference. Think of your next door neighbor doing what he can to take your house, and insisting you're not invited to the details. That's not peaceful any way you slice it. Karajou 21:34, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, hindsight is 20-20, but I reiterate, at the time it was considered a great peace effort. Jrssr5 21:39, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Unless you were sitting in Czechoslovakia at the time. Karajou 10:26, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Hitler was also Time's Man of the Year in '38 for organizing a peace type summit, so obviously people thought he was doing good things then too. Jrssr5 09:05, 30 April 2007 (EDT)